The Shining

AMC is currently playing a series of films from the past in showcase times on Sundays and Tuesdays. I did not get to "Bonnie and Clyde" and I will miss "Dirty Harry" next week, but I got a chance this afternoon to revisit Stanley Kubrick's version of "The Shining". It is a great film even though it is not as scary as you might have been lead to believe. It is creepy as all get out, and there are some good shocks, but the most disturbing and frightening image is a series of words typed out on a page. The gore level is low, the tension is slow building, and the style is all Kubrick, who has always been a "cool" film maker as opposed to a passionate hot.

This is not a full review but just a few comments about some of the things I noticed in the film that either escaped my attention before or that I'd simple forgotten. For instance, the guy who hires Jack Torrance to be the winter caretaker is Barry Nelson, a well known TV and character actor from the 50s and 60s who had the distinction of being the first actor to portray James Bond on screen. That was something I got a kick out of. The movie that Wendy and Danny are watching when Danny goes up to their apartment and finds his Dad sitting on the edge of the bed was "The Summer of 42". I don't know for sure why it struck me as interesting except that I'm a big fan of that movie.

Actor Tony Burton appears briefly in the film as the guy who gets Scatman Crothers a SnowKat to take up to the Overlook Hotel. He was Apollo Creed's corner man in the first couple of Rocky movies and he was a customer of the insurance agency my wife worked for thirty years ago. She said he was a very nice man, and I think he lives in our area because there is one of those autographed shots of him at the local Phillie's Best Sandwich shop. I also enjoyed the fact that Dr. Tyrell was serving the bourbon in the bar to Jack Torrance. Apparently Joe Turkel was a favorite of Kubricks.

Jack is at his Jack best in this movie. His performance is all eyebrows and smiles. Up until the end of the picture he manages to be a sympathetic character. You'd have to sympathize with a guy married to Shelly Duvall's Wendy. She is a nervous breakdown in a dress. I think I heard that Kubrick did not care much for her as an actress and tormented her to get the performance she turns in. It was an odd choice and it works for the movie but she doesn't get the kind of emotional support from the audience that would make her a more fulfilling heroine.

I have a lot of other things to do so as I said this is not a full review, just a bit of fun to remind people it is Halloween week and they should go out and find a scary movie to enjoy. That's what I did, even though it is 33 years old.

 

Escape Plan

This will be short and to the point. There is almost no way this whole scenerio could ever come close to happening. It is over the top dramatic and the prisoners in the "Tomb" would not have the same access to each other that they would have in a normal prison. The job that Sly has is one of those movie created specialties that exist in a screenwriters fantasy and that's about the only place. The speed of events and the brutality of the fights would leave normal human beings dead after a couple of minutes. All of that means nothing because this is an action film starring the two biggest action stars of the last thirty years and it goes down like candy. Sweeet.

As the world's foremost prison security expert (based on breaking out of high security penitentiary's). Stallone is his usual tough guy with a brain character. His brain is not big enough to keep him from being betrayed and locked in a prison that was built largely based on weaknesses he himself discovered.So the stakes are pretty high. Guess who he runs into on the inside, the Governator himself. Looking fit and with a stylish moustache and goatee. He is another prisoner who has been deep sixed into this high tech prison. Together they must break out. That's it. You don't really need more plot set up than that.

Arthur Conan Doyle gave Sherlock Holmes the detailed information he would need to crack a case. Holmes has made a study of tobacco so he knows where in London a certain blend can be bought. It was occasionally a stretch but it was not overused in the Holmes canon. Sly's character kno2ws the heat rate at which rusted steel bolts will snap, he knows that milk cartons have a cellophane like liner that can hold a mark and he can not only build a sextant, he can use one and teach someone else how to do so also. Yet this is the kind of hokum, fans of action films love. We love it when the hero outsmarts the bad guys and surprises us with a unexpected use for everyday items. MacGyver made a whole TV series out of that audience demand. So shrug your shoulders and go along for the ride.

Schwarzenegger is actually pretty good in his role as a guy who knows secrets that the bad guys want. He gets tortured and locked into isolation and gets to feign a breakdown as part of the plot to escape. His German sound very convincing, I wonder why because his English never was. Both he and Stallone beat up fellow prisoners and each other from time to time. The movie takes a while to get us to the prison but once it does there are plenty of the usual tough guy tropes. The biggest gas comes when, during the actual breakout, Arnold picks up a big ass machine gun off a helicopter. Anyone who has seen a Terminator movie knows what comes next and that's what we are waiting for.

The movie is efficient at making the characters just interesting enough for us to care, before tossing us into prison mayhem. The bad guy warden played by Jim Caviezel is just a big enough prick that we are anticipating the final outcome. There are plot holes and inconsistencies galore but who cares? Arnold and Sly get together to kick a little ass. I heard on "The Title Pending Movie Podcast" that they did not think it was quite "Cobrawesome". I guess I agree but I did find it "Terminazing".
 

Rush

It is hard for me to accept that I went three weeks with this in theaters and I'd not seen it yet. Holy crap, is this a great movie! I know nothing about Formula 1 racing, I knew next to nothing about this story and I've been hit ot miss on Ron Howard films for years. So you can take my word to the bank, this is one of the best films of the year. If it gets lost among all the other great films coming out now because Americans are not well versed in Formula 1, it would be a crying shame. The screenplay and performances in this movie are sure contenders for awards consideration and the film is directed with great confidence and patience by Mr. Howard. This is a thinking person's movie. It asks big questions and it probes deeply into the psyche of competition.

James Hunt and Niki Lauda are legends in their field. While they might be embraced by fans of racing, as portrayed here they would not be embraced by most of humanity. Each one has damning flaws and personalities that would drive the average person to the brink. Hunt is a reckless glory seeking thrill addict, who can't make an emotional connection and leaves a series of romantic conquests in his wake. Lauda is a brilliant machine, focused on the odds and playing a strictly regulated percentage as a competitor. That he manages to form a fully functioning romantic relationship is miraculous in itself since his arrogant self assurance is so off putting. As each one circles around the other, it is clear that their rivalry is uniquely reponsible for their individual success. Americans know how Larry Bird and Magic Johnson drove each other further along the path of greatness, this relationship works the same way. Each one needs the other as a standard by which to be compared.

Both actors are terrific in the parts they are cast in. Chris Helmsworth  was made to be an object of romantic fantasy. Women will want him and men will want to be him. He has swagger and weakness at the same time. he knows he can count on his good looks and his driving skills, but he can't always count on his head to tell him the right thing to do. The scene where Hunt antagonizes his wife into the arms of Richard Burton happens quickly and Helmsworth plays it fast and dismissive. Later he is all manufactured confidence when he announces to the world that he and his model wife are calling it quits. His crack to the media sounds light and cynical but we get a peek behind the curtain and see how it really effects him. Daniel Brühl as Lauda has the showier role despite being a character that is more contained. The physical transformation after his accident and the internalized struggle he goes through in trying to find enough reason to marry is played very well on screen.

The car racing sequences are aggressively edited and the sound design was impressive. I felt frequently caught up in the recreation of races from nearly forty years ago. The dramatic crash that briefly sidelines Lauda but changes him almost not at all was frightening and a little stomach churning as well. The harrowing hospital scenes are another place where Brühl gets to be the center of the story and show us what he has got. Hans Zimmer may have some cliches in his bag of tricks, but they work really well in this movie and the musical score keeps us involved and on the edge of the seat during the races. Howard and his team of editors don't linger over scenes and they don't cut them so quickly that you can't tell what is happening. This film was put together by people who know how to tell a story.

We had a conversation last night about how few movies these days feature actors in dramatic roles that are really about grown ups acting out a drama. This movie has come along and shut that conversation down. There are still good stories to tell and good actors who can play the story out for us. in the hands of another director, this could have just been an inspirational sports film. Howard and company have made a movie about courage, rivalry and the sacrifices it takes to be a champion. The fact that the story is true should not detract from their accomplishment. This film is almost out of theaters now, do yourself the favor of finding it in your local cinema and see what a great movie can be in the current film environment.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Blogathon

For the Cinematic Katzenjammer Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Blogathon


Here is my take on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I tried to find a theme that would be a bit different but I know that some of the choices were going to be obvious, at least they were to me. The four films I've chosen to represent the four horsemen have a common actor to unite them. His powerful voice and steel jawed expression make him the ideal stand in for God in the end of days. All of the films have their own following so there is not much need to introduce each of them. So I will give my simple justification and provide a few links to make a short visit worth your time.

Carrie (2013)

Everyone has an opinion about remakes. Most cinephiles hate them with a passion. "The new version will never live up to the original and Hollywood is creatively bankrupt". Of course people who have never seen the original don't care and they may first fall in love with the new work sometimes without even knowing that it was made before, "Oh my god, it's a remake? The original can't be as good." My opinion is that a remake is only likely to succeed if there was something about the original that is evergreen. The subject, the role the concept has to be something that people can relate to. This film is not an English language remake of a foreign film, so stupid Americans can watch without reading. It is a traditional remake, a chance to tell the same story in a different way for a new audience. Having seen the original however, it is impossible to approach the new film with impartial eyes. There will always be comparisons. So this review will focus on the comparisons.

The story is largely unchanged. The plot moves in the same direction with the same basic characters so there are no surprises as far as that goes. If you saw Brian DePalma's 1976 original, you have seen the story.  There are differences in style though that are interesting and help the movie feel fresh despite the previous version. For instance, the start of this film is very different, it has a flashback story technique that takes a little advantage of our expectations and makes what follows a bit more meaningful. Julianne Moore is playing the Piper Laurie role of Carrie's mom. She is pathetic and frightening and loving and hateful, and usually all at the same time. The religious fanaticism here is contained to her world and unlike the original, this woman is not surviving on the charity of guilty Christians. She is even more clearly disturbed than Laurie was in the part. That being said, I think she feels less of a presence than in the 1976 version. Carrie's powers dominate after she gets asked to the prom, and the terror that we felt for Sissy Spacek when she returns from the prom is less ominous as a result.

The DePalma version starts with a lurid trip through the girls locker room and the movie is on the brink of being an exploitation film, but it is held back from that by a sympathetic central character. This version never feels dangerous in the same way. It is going to be a serious film from the time it starts and the directors restraint at the beginning creates a more subdued feeling. The bullying that Carrie endures is exaggerated by the modern technology but the bullies are mostly the same. Chris, the main antagonist, acts out her rage at being called on the carpet for being a bitch. When she can't get away with it, even with her father confronting the principal she goes off the deep end. Nancy Allen's version of Chris is mean girl standard, Portia Doubleday is a monster in the making that crawls out of the larvae stage to become a full fledged antagonist. The one flaw from the original film was that Chris' comeuppance was over so quickly, that is a mistake that is remedied here.  

In the original, it always seemed to me to be very ambiguous as to Sue and Tommy's motivation for getting Carrie to the prom. William Katt came off as a good natured doofus, and Amy Irving did not quite break with the Chris character. Their involvement in the end becomes a bit of a puzzle. In this version, Sue is clearly conflicted about being one of Chris's drone bees. She is motivated by guilt and a desire to reach out to Carrie. Tommy in this version is also very sweet and he seems to understand his role much more clearly. His exclamation of "What the F@#*" as the crimson shower comes down on them signals to the audience and to Carrie that he was a victim of Chris as well. This is another point that makes the emotions work better although the mind is not taxed as much. I'm not sure which version I prefer but I do know that Tommy is sympathetic in both and Sue is a lot more sympathetic in the new version. The mean girls that follow Chris are not as distinct in the new version so although there is some furious vengence rained down on them, it does not feel as significant.
 
Carrie is played by one of my favorite young actresses,  Chloë Grace Moretz (Hit Girl) for the uninitiated. She is very good in the part. Whereas Sissy Spacek was all big eyes and small voice, Chloë grows more confidence with her power and the decimation of the prom feels like a more deliberate act as a result. The harshness of the original is tempered here in that not everyone dies at the end. That may feel like a sell out but it will make a more sympathetic Carrie at the end of the movie. The remorse and compassion that Carrie feels at the end makes us more likely to resent the "Burns in Hell" graffiti that is the exit of the film. There was no way that the stinger from the original would be matched or that it would work, so they don't try for that. Instead they try for a more supportive outcome that makes us more likely to feel for our protagonist. 

The one thing that did clearly fail in the film was the CGI effects. They take us out of the movie and were overdone. If you have seen the viral video of the coffee shop, you will see a more convincing and frightening version of the power that Carrie wields. I don't know that we can but the genii back in the bottle but the old school effects are more effective at creating real shock than the modern computer. I was very satisfied with the film. The story still gives us a slow burn and the actors do a good job making their characters feel fresh even though this is a remake. Since I'm not a hater I am willing to give this movie my approval. It was not necessary but it was not a waste of time either.

Machette Kills

I'm afraid this sequel should have been called "Machete Sucks".

If you have read this site in the past, you know that I am a as big a fan of trash cinema as the next person. I enjoy those terrible SyFy Channel shark movies, I like to wallow in bad taste humor and violent action films are my Big Mac. So this series of movies, based on a trailer invented for the "Grindhouse" feature a few years ago should be right up my alley. I will admit that there were some great bits in "Machete" when it came out three years ago. My favorite part being Machete's use of a guys intestines to swing down a couple of floors and escape. The problem I had with that film was that it started moralizing about political subjects it had not earned the right to be serious about.

Rumor had it that this new version steered clear on the Illegal Alien subtext and stuck strictly to an action formula. That had my hopes up but they were quickly dashed. "Machete Kills" is supposed to be fun trash cinema and it is dumb trash cinema. Writer Director Richard Rodriguez has taken a great idea, and a great character and turned it into a meaningless cartoon with less personality than Scooby Doo. Somewhere he got the idea that all he had to do was show cool images and that would be enough. There are a lot of neat looking things in the movie, but they are pasted together in such a slapdash fashion that they mean nothing and don't hold your attention or build suspense. It feels like a TV movie made by someone who has seen enough action films to know what to include but has no idea what an action film is really all about.

The bad guys are all built up to be horrible but they are dispatched without any fun or glee. People are shooting all the time but no one seems to feel any anxiety about being shot at. They die too quickly or escape without consequence. Much of the film reminds me of "Sin City" which was all about the look and did not have a single moment of real emotion in it. Pacing feels wrong, everything happens quickly and without purpose. Characters change allegiance, personality and their faces for no reason whatsoever. There are jokes that just lay there and do nothing and random people are killed without any explanation. The CGI bloodshed may have something to do with this. So much of it seems designed for a visual gag, but the gags only work if we are caught up in what is going on.

Danny Trejo is a national treasure that is wasted here. Action stops repeatedly when he is threatened and he is not escaping by using his wits. When there is a funny bit it is thrown away so quickly that there is not much chance to enjoy it. Mostly he is asked to walk around mayhem that goes on around him. Slow motion walking does not build a good character. It's as if he was directed to express no emotion at all, but he needs to be angry and determined. He looks lost in a PG sex scene and bored in every other scene. No one gets to spend much screen time with him and that also undermines our ability to care.

This is kitchen sink film making. Throw in everything we can and everyone we can get. Jessica Alba is gone in the blink of an eye, Michelle Rodriguez can't blink her eyes and Amber Heard, who I liked in "Drive Angy" walks through this with an irritated scowl as her main facial expression. Antonio Banderas, Cuba Gooding Jr., Walton Goggins and Lady GaGa all play the same character. It is a joke that gets repeated four times and was not funny the first time. The film wants to be a cheap parody of James Bond and Mission Impossible, it's not even a good parody of "Spy Hard ".  The grindhouse fare of the 70s had grit under its fingernails and simple stories that played out in obvious ways but at least you could tell what was happening. This movie feels as if it was assembled in a computer from a writing program that did not care about motivation, continuity or entertainment. We saw it today using an on-line two for one coupon from AMC. I now understand why they have to bribe people to come see it after only eight days in the theaters. If I had payed full price for two tickets instead of half price for matinee tickets, I would be the one who wanted to kill.

Drew: The Man Behind the Poster

I am so overwhelmed when I encounter talent far beyond my ability to comprehend. I know authors and directors and actors are special people who bring their talent to the audience in a way that is amazing, but more than any other skill or ability in the world of the arts, the talent to draw or paint stuns me. There are very talented computer animators and musicians, but I guess their tools feel so much more significant to their work in comparison to a man with a canvas, some pencils and paint.  To watch someone manipulate an air brush or colored pencil and turn a blank canvas into something spectacular is a gift from the gods. Tonight I had the pleasure of watching a film about one of those artists with a talent far beyond my understanding. Drew Struzan has been making commercial art for forty years and all of it is in my head because the art he is best known for is hanging on my walls right now. Drew Struzan does movie poster art. He paints the images and draws the figures and integrates the imagination with the eye. Everyone who reads this will know his work although many of you will not know his name.

If you were to name a movie series from the last forty years of film, except for James Bond, Drew appears to have painted something for those projects. Even when his artwork is not used for the main poster, there are special edition posters and art books and box art for home video that he created. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future all use his iconic work. He does not produce those images from a computer but rather with his own two hands using an eye for detail that most of us cannot comprehend. This film gives us some brief glimpses of him at work and the small details that he adds to all of his work make the images come to life. Some might dismiss this work as mere illustration but when you see the creativity and magic that the images provoke, you will know that this is fine art.

The film is a love letter to poster art and a warm tribute to the man himself. The director Eric Sharkey managed to make a human story as well as a thank you note from all of us. I was surprised at some of the dark issues that got mentioned, because this type of biographical film might be seen as a mere puff piece. Drew's start in life was not easy and breaking into the art world was a passion that most of us cannot imagine. The term "starving artist" has been around forever, but it certainly seemed to apply here. Even though it was more than forty years ago, I found myself heaving a sigh of relief when Drew got his first steady job working as an illustrator for album covers.Since I am a huge Bee Gees fan, the work that I most admired was the cover art for the "Main Course" album.
It was however the amazing cover for Alice Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare, that got him noticed by the more lucrative world of movie advertising and it wasn't long before he was knee deep in the film business with a lot of big names knocking at his door. A collaboration with another illustrator on the poster for Star Wars, lead to a long time association with George Lucas.Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford and many others all line up to sing the praises of this talented artist. Each is able to express a sense of wonder at how his style and technique bring a living quality to his paintings. Spielberg has even gone so far to say that he needs to make the movie live up to the illustrations that Drew provided for the film.


There are highs and lows in the stories and some truly amazing pieces of information. The poster for "John Carpenter's The Thing" was done without any visual reference to the story, no photos from the set, a complete absence of guidelines for what the "Thing" looked like and it was done in a day. Many would consider the concept to be among the most clever of his career. I can't think of how someone could accomplish this in months, much less in the space of just over a day. As you listen to Drew Struzan describe these events, it is clear he is not bragging or exaggerating. He is a quiet, unassuming man with confidence in his ability and a sense of guilelessness that is disarming. He tells the stories proudly but without glory. He is a man simply describing his work, not aggrandizing it. That is for everyone else to do and they all do it very well.

I almost went full fanboy at the screening tonight. It took place at the Archlight theater in Hollywood, and I just happened on an announcement on Facebook. Mr. Struzan himself was going to attend and there would be some Q and A. I brought my copy of his book of poster art, thinking I might ask him to sign it. However after seeing how retiring he is in person, and noting that the occasion was a screening not an autograph queue, I held myself back. After the Q and A, I got a chance to speak to the director and shared my appreciation for his work in making the movie happen. The producer, editor and cinematographer were also in attendance and I wish I could have made it over to speak to them as well. I also got to shake the hand of the man himself. Because there was another film screening at the Festival in the same theater, we could not linger in the aisles. I did however force myself on him as he exited the theater and had a chance to speak to him for a few brief moments. As I'm sure he heard from a thousand other lovers of his work, I told him of my admiration for all he had accomplished. He was extremely gracious and shared with me that although he is retired from the movie painting business he still needs to work to take care of his home and family. An artist must work, their art demands it. I know that Drew Struzan does not continue to paint because he needs the money, he does it because he needs the outlet for his talent. I am just thrilled to have seen the film in a theater and even more so to have shaken the hand that produced so much of what I love about the movie poster business.

Gravity

If you find the trailer tense, wait till you see the movie. This is a film that lived up to my expectations and had a solid emotional wallop to go with it. There are beautiful moments and poignant ones but most of all there are tense interludes that will keep you on the edge of your seat for most of the running time. The 3D IMAX experience was well worth the extra cost because the story is really told from a first hand point of view and you get to experience that point of view in vivid detail with all of the debris and drama flying at you.

Two weeks ago, the newly refurbished Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd. reopened as an IMAX venue. One of my on-line friends took his family to the one week run of the 3D version of the Wizard of Oz. After reading his glorious appreciation of the experience I was frankly envious. I would have loved to do that. I knew however that "Gravity" was scheduled to be there in the following week and I have been looking forward to this film since the first teaser. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are the whole show when it comes to actors on screen. They however are not really alone because the magicians who perform special effects magic are right there beside them. This is the most realistic vision of space we are likely to see in a fictional form. The only images that compete with it are the films done by NASA themselves. The camera work is likely to leave you dizzy but not in the way that the shaky cam has over the last ten years. The rotation of the Earth and the difficulty in finding a fixed point in space contribute to a sense of vertigo that makes the story feel more personal.

If you are wondering what fills the time in a film about astronauts cut off from their ship, don't fret. There is a very effective survival plot to go along with the events that lead to the tragedy. This is not an hour and a half mediation on man's place in the Universe as their time slowly runs out. The well trained professionals here are going to find every opportunity they can to rescue themselves. Well each of the characters may despair at one point or another, we ultimately have a powerful story of human will to survive presented to us. There are moments of surprise and quick actions accompanied by more slowly building incidents that also bring the kettle to a boil. This is a world where Murphy's Law is clearly in place and nothing can be counted on to be simple. While that seems manipulative in a film like "Armageddon" it is much more natural and easy to accept in this story.

Both actors have to do most of their work inside of the pressurized space suits that sustain life for a limited time in space. There is a plethora of digital readouts and space based images that cross the clear face-masks of the astronauts. This adds data but not enough to be distracting or to answer too many questions. There are so many details to take in at any moment that we wonder how it is that these two can keep from being overwhelmed. It is Clooney's clear and calm voice that reminds us that they have been trained and prepared for all sorts of eventualities and that this is the time that their training needs to kick in. His ability to remain focused and even at time make a well placed joke, pulls both characters back from the panic that any one of us would surely go through in the same situation.

Sandra Bullock gets the lions share of the accolades however since so much of the stories emotional impact depends on our ability to identify with her. The set up makes it clear that this is her first time in space and as a mission specialist, she has the least amount of training to handle the catastrophe. In most of her quiet moments we can see a frightened woman who is struggling with the question of how to go on in the face of overwintering odds. There is a fantastic effect when her tears float off of her face and into the camera that brings us really close to the character she is playing. I have not seen many female performances this year that would rival the work she does here without resorting to histrionics. I thought it was deeply felt and subtly conveyed. She is a movie star to be sure but she is also a very good actress.


"Gravity" is the most exciting film I have seen this year and it will certainly be a contender for a number of awards in technical fields including directing. Alfonso Cuarón has created a dynamic film that features a terrific lead performance by his female star and all the editing and camerawork should be noted as well. We have a contender here and it is also a very entertaining film.

Addendum: It suddenly dawned on me that I have not seen a film in the main house at the Chinese Theater for almost a dozen years. The last film I am certain we saw there was a press screening of "3000 Miles to Graceland" where we met both Kevin Costner and Kevin Pollock. Clearly it has been too long. The Outside of the theater continues to be a tourist destination as you can see here.

From the outside the theater has not changed at all. The foot and hand prints of the stars still line the courtyard and the crowds bend over to examine them and stand in the same spot that John Wayne or Gregory Peck stood when they were immortalized. The only things missing from the days when I used to haunt this location on a near weekly basis are the ticket booth with awning that has long gone and the giant marquee that announced in huge lettering the feature that is playing in the big theater. The only marquee now visible is the one at the street box office for the multiplex Chinese Theater located in the same complex. The theater has been taken over by a Chinese conglomerate and they have wisely upgraded the screen and the seating area but left most of the traditional trappings in place.

The interior still looks like a Chinese Palace and the original wall hanging appear to have been cleaned up and restored but not changed. The IMAX screen is large but it does not hover above you like those at museum locations around the country. The bathrooms continue to be located inconveniently in the basement, requiring a descent down a narrow flight of stairs. It looks pretty much the way I remembered it so those modifications that took place did not drop down to the lower level of the lobby. The one difference in the lobby area that was clear was the depth of the concession stand area. While not as wide and roomy as many theaters now a days, it is back away from the main doors enough that you no longer have to cross through the lines of patrons waiting for popcorn to get to the main exit or the stairs to the bathroom. Prior to the film today, two trailers ran for films that will be on the big screen here: The Hunger Games:Catching Fire and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Each film looked like a winner in the brief shots we got and the 3D IMAX should complement them very well.

Prisoners

As the father of two girls, I approached this film with a great deal of trepidation. Although my kids are grown, I know what a horrible feeling it would be to have your children disappear. The nightmare that these two families face gets worse with every minute that the children are gone.  I was not sure that this would be the kind of film that I would be able to stomach. If you are a parent and wary of seeing this because it might hit too close to home, then you are better off skipping down to the next start time and seeing a good family film or a thriller where child abduction is not the starting point. In the long run the story will reveal it's secrets and there will be moments of redemption, but they come at a great cost.

Usually I avoid reading other reviews before I see a film, but this past week on the radio and on a podcast that I listen to, both viewers mentioned the same tell. They each generally liked the film but they said they knew who was responsible for the crime based on a well known trait of film making most recognizable on dramatic TV programs. (I won't tell you what the clue is because I don't want you to have the same issue that I did). As a result of hearing this info, I spent a chunk of the movie watching for the give away instead of just following the story. As it turns out, it did not matter because I did not recognize the an actor playing a key character and I was diverted from the tell at the beginning. After I settled down to watch the story unfold, I did find myself caught up in the details of the plot. It is a complicated set of events and the resolution follows some strong plotting techniques but also some typical movie shortcuts. There are a couple of glaring coincidences that help things move forward, but there are also so many side issues and red herrings that those contrivances do not matter much.

All of the advertising for the film has already revealed that the parents of the kidnapped children are willing to go to extreme lengths to try and find them. This raised some pretty tough moral issues and there are some scenes of brutality that are hard to take. We are spared the visualization of the process for the most part but we do get a lot of the after effects and it isn't pretty. Hugh Jackman's character is a self sufficient type, prepared for emergencies, able to provide for his family and the owner of his own business. His portrayal of a father pushed to the breaking point and pushing back is the strength of the story, but it is Jake Gyllenhaal's police detective that is the strength of the movie. Jackman's intensity is understandable from the beginning and he goes on full Wolverine mode at times to get what he wants. Detective Loki, is a different matter. As the story progresses he becomes less detached, more volatile and a lot more conflicted in his motivations. Gyllenhaal is impressive playing a completely different type of dogged determination than he played in "Zodiac" as a man obsessed with finding the identity of a killer. The script lets him down in a couple of places, but his work pulls us back into the story and away from the conventional tools that might unwrap the mystery.

The scenes where the two fathers pursue their own project to get information are solid but rarely a surprise. The false trails and secondary characters that seem to create a diversion are actually all cleverly tied into each other. I thought it was a very solid job of plotting. There are two outstanding "thrill" moments which occur as those threads are being unraveled and then some other moments of dramatic fireworks as well. It is unfortunate that the resolution does not have quite the same spark to it, although there is a much darker element and personality revealed. The personality of our heroes is shown in the most naked circumstances and this is where the redemption comes through for them. You have to have been paying attention to have it all make sense and there are still a couple of small bits of info that I would like clarified, but it was overall satisfying.

The other thing I heard talk of before I saw the movie was the running time. It is two and a half hours. Both of the commentators I happened across suggested that it could lose nearly an hour of run time. I did not notice that the story moved slowly. I think if the pace had been quicker, then there would be even more difficulty in making sense of the plot. This feels like an attempt at creating an original piece of story telling and not simply a programmer like those 1990s Paramount films that crammed plot, thrills and Ashley Judd into ninety minutes. I can't say it was perfect but I did think it worked very well and despite my hesitation over the subject matter, I was glad I saw it and I think most of you will be as well.

The Wizard of Oz IMAX 3D

There is nothing I can say that has not already been said about this film. It is the quintessential family entertainment of the last century and a masterpiece from that greatest of years 1939. I do think that makes this "75th" Anniversary Release a bit premature but I am not complaining. This morning I skipped down the Yellow Brick Road with Dorothy and her friends and although I have seen the movie dozens of times it was like a new adventure. It was just a few short years ago that the film was re-mastered for high definition release but a little something extra was added this time. This was a 3D IMAX film.

We ended up seeing it in Fauxmax because I could not bring myself to drive down to Hollywood after the last couple of long days. The the local upgrades to neighborhood theaters that claim to be IMAX screens do provide a nice picture and superior sound, but they do not have the enveloping scope of the real IMAX screens that are seven stories high and require audience seating at a stiff 45 degree angle. There were other films that I might have seen this weekend but this is a one week engagement and those others can wait.

A picture to show that I am a "Musical" lover, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 The colors when they appear are brilliant and the clarity is amazing. If you were not able to see it before, the Scarecrow actually has burlap cross weave in the makeup on his face. You can see all the birds in the background during the" apples" sequence and the flying monkeys will creep you out even more because they still look real. The 3D conversion is competent and it adds a nice texture to a special occasion but it is not needed. This movie just rocks.

No rainbows here in Southern California this weekend

The songs are wonderful and all of you who play the slots in Vegas or some other casino, you know how the sound can be addicting. The Video slot versions of the Wizard of Oz use the sound to suck you in and keep you playing, just to hear that sweet music again and again. I continue to deny the explanation at the end. Everyone else thinks it was just a dream but Dorothy, Toto and us all know that OZ is a real place that you get to over the rainbow. If you don't have any rain on your horizon in the next few days and thus no chance of rainbow, the other way you get to Oz is by plopping down your $15 bucks and putting on some geeky glasses. This week, it is the shorter route.

Riddick

The drought is officially over. No, not the dearth of good films, just my absence from movie theaters. As the summer ends and we creep into fall, a confluence of circumstances has come together to keep me away from my holy temple for three long weeks, 21 days, 504 hours (not that I was counting or anything). I have returned to school and that limits opportunities. Football has restarted and now the holy ground of the L.A. Coliseum calls to me many Saturdays, we will ignore the desecration that took place two weeks ago. Finally, good movies have dried up, making a trip to the theater difficult to plan unless I want to repeat something or trek forty miles to see something new that I might be interested in. "Riddick" represents a methadone injection, it scratches the itch but is not as satisfying as an addict might want. I saw "Pitch Black" when it came out ten years ago, and I thought it was an effective piece of science fiction/horror hokum. I only saw it the one time so I can't recall any details. "The Chronicles of Riddick" made it onto my plate as a Saturday afternoon satellite film. Since I subscribe to everything, it came up and I watched. Again, just the one time and my memory of it is even fuzzier, though it was the more recent experience. So if I am not a big fan you ask, why did this new film draw me back to theaters?  Well it turns out that my delightful oldest child is a fan and we seldom get to go together to the movies anymore. We do share some tastes and when an opportunity knocks I am going to open the door. As a bonus, today we were joined by her husband, a rather large man who seldom travels to a movie so it was a fun change of pace.

One of the nice things about a movie like this is that the history of the character is mostly irrelevant to the story that is being told. "Betrayed again, shoulda seen it coming. Especially since the first time it happened was the day I was born." That is the opening line of the movie and it is as much as you really need to know. Riddick is a badass who has crappy things happen to him and then he solves those problems with extreme prejudice. He has killed something in front of our eyes before we have even seen him, so you know what is coming. There is a short flashback sequence to explain how he was abandoned on this hostile planet. This is the only sequence that Karl Urban appears in so if he is the reason you are thinking of taking a flyer on this film, don't. He has maybe ninety seconds of screen time. The first half of the movie is pretty much Vin Diesel doing his growling thing. When you pay to see a movie starring Vin, it is unlikely that dialogue is what you want to see and hear. You want action sequences and hard guy attitude. Well, you will get the hard guy attitude, but the action sequences are not quite as involving as they could be.

So Riddick is trapped on the planet and has to figure out how to survive. This entails scoping out the landscape, assessing the local monsters and figuring out how to shelter himself. One of the ways in which he integrates himself into the world is by doing Will Smith in "I am Legend". His CGI costar is actually kind of fun, but you know in the long run it isn't going to be a happy ending. It is standard man in the wilderness film making except that the wilderness is a giant planet teeming with vicious creatures that special effects computers render in abundance. The look of the movie is interesting but you can notice at times that they cut some corners on visual effects in order to make them inexpensive. It won't undermine your enjoyment of the movie any unless you are uptight like that. Once Riddick has figured out that there is a mercenary way station on the planet (a sort of bounty hunters cabin in the woods), he sends out a notice that he is there, basically trying to get a ride off the planet. For reasons that are never gone into, Riddick is the most notorious criminal in the universe and every planet seems to have put out a bounty on him. As soon as he makes himself known, two competing crews of mercenaries show up to capture and kill him. Of course the bounty hunters will not only be outmatched by Riddick himself, we are going to get a repeat of the first film where the monsters come out at night and Riddick is their only hope.

There is not much need for character development. Hairstyles and clothing manage to tell us all we need to know about the bounty hunters. One group is cruel and probably as big a group of criminals as our hero himself. The second group is tough and more professional and they have a hidden agenda to go along with their story. Heads will butt, testosterone will flow freely and Riddick will kill enough of them to show he means business and then have the remainder to potentially save. There are a few clever tricks in Riddicks handling of the two crews. The guy has the biggest cojones in the universe and he does a good job trying to intimidate the others, although they frequently continue to underestimate him. When the CGI space creatures show up, the movie slips into auto pilot and gives us random shoot outs, sudden deaths and lots of screaming critters in the dark. The creatures are not scary the way I remember similar creatures being in "Pitch Black" but they will do for an adversary that brings competing forces together. The last section of the film feels a little rushed and incomplete which is odd because so much time was taken in the first hour to set things up.

If I was thirteen or fourteen, and seeing this stuff for the first time, I'd be excited as heck about it. This is juicy Sci Fi action and a tough guy character that every adolescent boy would probably want to emulate. Somewhere inside of me, that kid still survives. He got a kick out of the cheesy space motorcycles in the film. He liked the vicious payoff of the main antagonist in the story. He is also a sucker for a good dog and even if this one was a virtual pet, it was still something to enjoy. The older version of that kid thought the movie was fine for a Sunday afternoon and I will probably not remember any of it in a couple of months. That will make it better when someone down the road suggests a "Riddick" marathon on a rainy weekend. It will be like new for me, and then I can repeat all of these jokes.

The World's End

Everyone knows there can be a gap between that which is quality and that which is enjoyable. Occasionally they go together but many, many, times, you have to accept that you just like something because you do, not because it is artistic, innovative or excellent. "The World's End" is silly, annoying and spins off in a direction that makes almost no sense what ever, it is my favorite movie this summer. I laughed more per minute during this film that I have at any film I can think of for the last four or five years. If you have a low tolerance for Simon Pegg, then you should stay away because he is the show entirely for the first half of the film. If you are like me however and find him oddly sympathetic in spite of himself, then you will be sucked in during the first minutes of the movie and you will practically cheer at the conclusion.

It would be easy to confuse this movie with this summers earlier "This is the End". Both of them feature a group of friends who party too hard and end up facing an unexpected Apocalypse. "The World's End" builds up to the fireworks more slowly and it has a much stronger sense of character. The actors here are not playing thinly veiled versions of themselves, they are characters in a story. There is some background established and we are not reliant on our knowledge of other movies to make sense of who each one is. Bits and pieces of the back story emerge as the film goes forward, revealing some surprises but mostly confirming our fears and expectations about these friends. Most of us have a friend like Gary, a guy who was full of himself once upon a time and has the same party hardy attitude that got us in trouble when we were kids. That Gary is able to wrangle up his four best mates twenty years after they fell out of contact is not a surprise. Even though people do change, relational dynamics often follow built in patterns long after they have worn out any sense of purpose. Four successful guys get wrangled into doing a pub crawl they all failed to finish twenty years earlier because the one friend who needs to fulfill this wish still has the same ability to push their buttons and exploit their weak spots. Gary is not even smart about it, he is simply following programming.

Everything in this opening section worked for me. The awkward re-connections, the "white" lies, the sense of guilt and obligation are all exploited in very funny ways. We discover that Gary has been exploiting some of his old friends for years and they did not know it. Gary is a force of nature, not automatically for good, but one that anyone in his path will have to deal with. Pegg delivers his lines like the cocksure, cheery, a hole he is playing. Timing is essential for a comedy and he has perfect timing for the comebacks, asides and outrageous arguments he spouts off on. Most of this gets even better when we get to the actual pub crawl and the alcohol starts taking effect. In the second act the other characters start to step forward and make their own comic contributions. They stop being foils for Gary's character and develop their own personality quirks that are just as amusing. Nick Frost, Pegg's partner in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz", finally comes alive with some self righteous attitude and serious ass kicking skills playing Andy, Gary's closest friend in their youth. In the off the wall third act he is the main focus of the humor and he comes through just like Pegg does in the clinches.

The slow burning second act cheerfully breaks down what sense of normalcy there was for these friends. There are a couple of life lessons and sad stories injected to add a bit more meaning to the proceedings, but everything continues to be funny. The pacing of this film is a lot like "Hot Fuzz" because once we hit the third act all hell breaks loose and any sense that this movie was going to be about the bonds of friendship gets lost in a completely creative yet oddly derivative story. Look, this is a Mash up of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Night of the Living Dead", so how is it creative? All those parts come two thirds of the way in and they speed the film along to it's conclusion so fast that it is hard to know exactly where we left the tracks of sanity, and who cares anyway? So it makes no sense that a bunch of middle aged men are suddenly mixed martial artists, or that an alien invasion is confronted with a hysterical reductionist Star Trek type alien computer meltdown. It is done in a silly and entertaining way. The creativity here comes from taking the absurdity of the plot twist and having a damn fun time with it.

There are technical issues with some effects, and there are story issues that seem just awkward. I don't care. This is the second film in the so called  "Cornetto" Trilogy to turn a former James Bond into a villain, the music cues are fantastic, Rosamund Pike appears again in a Pierce Brosnan movie and she is mature beautiful instead of hot beautiful. The audience was laughing so much that I missed several lines so this experience will clearly need repeating. What better recognition can you give to a comedy than I cried my eyes out with laughter? Maybe I could have wet myself but I did not lose that much control and I'm still willing to say it was incredibly funny. Humor is subjective at times, maybe it won't strike you the same way it did me. If that's the case I'm sorry for you because this was the movie I enjoyed the most this year. It was original, familiar, and just so damn funny to me that I pity you if you missed the experience I had.

Blue Jasmine

Frankly, Woody Allen has always been a hit or miss proposition for me. Early films were zany comedies, then there came the more mature adult stories and finally there is a long stretch of inconsistency. The last of his films that I saw and liked was "Midnight in Paris". Before that I had gone for almost fifteen years without seeing any of his work. It's not that I dislike his style, it simply is that he writes movies that have little resonance for me. The fantasy of "Midnight in Paris" worked for me and I suspect I might like "Match Point" because it has a thriller element. So you might ask yourself, "What was he doing at Blue Jasmine?" It is a brittle comedy that travels some very dark places and requires a lot of patience. The answer is I am blocked for the moment from seeing other films until my movie going partners are able to attend, and I needed a cinema fix. I could have stayed home and watched something I've seen before but a fresh film is just hard to turn down.

In the long run I may have been better off turning down the siren call of the theater. "Blue Jasmine" is not a bad film, but from my point of view, Woody Allen brought half a thing. There is an extensive number of incidents that make up the story, but the major events are all told in flashback so the movie does not feel like it has any narrative drive. There is so much character development that you never feel like the story is going someplace and then it turns out that it isn't going anyplace, it just sort of ends. With "Annie Hall" Allen told a nonlinear story but the transitions and incidents were all building to something. Maybe I can't remember the sequence of events exactly, but I could tell you what the story was about. I'm back to that old joke I use with my kids and I think I may have used on this site once before. "What's it about?" It's about a hundred minutes.

Cate Blanchett is a wonderful actress who is capable of creating real emotions on screen. This movie is basically an opportunity to show off her craft and she never seems to overplay it, even when the story calls for her to have gone over the edge. As one of two adopted sisters, she seems to be the one who should have the most solid chance at success. Of course life does not always work out the way it looks like it should and her character ends up living with her sad sack sister in San Francisco. Both women turn out to have self destructive impulses when it comes to the men in their lives. Each one makes bad choices but we don't always know why. As Cate's character Jasmine gets buffeted about by the life she chose, she also influences the life of her sister, despite the fact that they are not close and feel somewhat estranged from one another. Blanchett plays confident and doubtful in the same scenes, She gets a chance to have on screen breakdowns and deal with humorous but uncomfortable situations every few minutes. There is no fault in her performance, I'm just not sure what it is in aid of.

There are several actors who should be mentioned for the good work they do here as well. Bobby Cannavale who I liked so much in "Win-Win" a couple of years ago, plays the sister's current boyfriend. He is rough around the edges but he appears to be good hearted. Even the scenes that he appears in where he is something of a menace, you never feel threatened. Instead you might have some empathy for the guy. Exactly the same thing could be said about Andrew Dice Clay. If you had suggested twenty years ago that he would be working with Woody Allen, people would have laughed, but not in the way the "Diceman" would have wanted you to. His character is the former husband of Jasmine's sister and he has a legitimate amount of anger that gets channeled pretty well.  Louie C.K. shows up for a couple of scenes and his character seems like an opportunity for some happiness in a different direction. The resolution of his character in the story is handled by a phone call that may seem obvious to the audience but was a direct betrayal of the character as presented. Maybe that is the point. Just as Alec Baldwin turns out to be something less than he appears to be, I guess it is going to be a characteristic of all the men in the story. Peter Sarsgaard plays effete snobbery so well that it is easy to believe he could be a political animal from San Francisco. For someone who is not too fond of the Golden State, Allen gets this character exactly right. Probably because he is just a left coast version of a New Yorker.

The movie follows a lot of ideas and trails back on itself several times. There is a revelation that I suppose was designed to be shocking but felt exactly right and was not much of a surprise at the end. We haven't traveled very far from the start of the story when the movie is over. The status of the main characters has not changed, there is a bit more sadness about everyone involved and there was a slight amount of humor but it is largely smothered in the melodrama of the main characters. It feels a bit like six weeks of a soap opera condensed to a couple hours. Of course in a soap, the story never ends, and this movie feels the same. If you are an Allen completest,    than by all means enjoy. If you can take him or leave him like me, this would be one that you can safely leave on the table.

What Did I Do This Summer When Not At The Movies?

Laser Discs are an outmoded technology that never quite took off outside of the world of aficionados and tech geeks. They introduced many of the features that we now take for granted on a DVD or Blu Ray release. Such features would include a secondary audio track; either score, commentary or dubbing. Lasers also introduced Trailers, outtakes,  featurettes and a bucket load of other cool stuff.

Last Year at the Archlight theater in Hollywood, they had a fifty foot high poster wall with a light box for all the 80s posters they were showing off. Then next time I was in they had a sports movie themed wall. At the other locations they have similar displays. I love this idea and am jealous that I don't have the space or money to reproduce it with my own poster collection. I do however have those a whole lot of discs and now I can create my own theme walls using the Laser Disc covers.

Laser Discs never managed to spread out in a wide enough pattern to make them more cost efficient. At most, 2% of American homes had laser players, I am among those two percent. I still have almost 800 discs that were previously stored in two magazine racks in my home office (along with two big tubs on the floor). I currently have three players that are not working so they really are not doing much for me except reminding me of all the money I spent. Still, most of the Discs that I bought had beautiful covers or gate-fold jackets and it is a shame not to be able to see them.

To fix this issue, I have borrowed an idea from one of the Laser Disc stores I used to haunt back in the early 1990s. "Laserwave" was located in San Gabriel, about a mile from where I lived and they sold and rented Discs, so I was in there on a weekly basis. I always loved the way they had them displayed on the walls. Much of their business was karaoke based, being in a large Asian community in Southern California, but the displays were all movies. They had a unique wall system that I always admired. The thin shelves were fronted with acetate edging to keep the discs from slipping off and the shelf above had an acetate edge to keep the disc from falling over. You simply insert the disc under the top lip and then drop the bottom behind the lip on the lower shelf. It was harder to get right than I thought and it took more time as a result.

Here is my humble attempt to copy both the Arclight and Laserwave:

I anticipate being able to put up theme walls when I have all my discs sorted and the office back in working order, I'll try to shoot some of the KAMAD VLOG posts in front of the themes. Look for a horror wall in October, that will be the soonest I will have my stuff together.

By the way, if you have a collection of old LPs, this would be a great way to feature a large number instead of merely a few well chosen pieces of music art.

Unlike Siskel and Ebert, I don't have a balcony to close, so I'll just sign off and wish you happy celluloid dreams.

Kick Ass 2

Right off the bat let me say that there was no way that the sequel could live up to the magnificence that was the 2010 Best Movie of the Year (At least here on My site). The original Kick Ass introduced my favorite character in movies in the last ten years or so, and it featured a deliberately off the wall, in an appropriate way, Nicolas Cage performance. It had the most insane style and over the top characters and a solid hero story at it's center. The pacing and the whole comic book milieu was mixed in pretty perfect proportions. Kick Ass 2 would be lacking the touch of the original director, Matthew Vaughn, and Nic Cage's character doesn't make it out of the first story so you knew he was not going to be back. So how can you possibly try to match that first experience. The answer is that you can't. So you just try to make the best movie that you can out of the pieces that remain from your origin story. In my view, Kick Ass 2 manages to be a successful action comedy, that does nothing to embarrass the first movie and still entertains the heck out of those of us who love the characters.

One way that the story tries to compensate for the loss of the surprise factor in the first film is by introducing novel new characters to fill in some gaps. Mark Strong was a great villain, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse returns as Chris D'Amico, the son of Strong's character and the double crossing hero named Red Mist. Mintz-Plasse is never going to be anyone's nightmare villain. He doesn't have the look or the muscles to carry it off. In an early scene where he tries to make his new super villain, "The Mother F*****" a more viable adversary through training he gets pounded by his ring opponent. The screenwriter knows that he can never be the physical equal of the Dad, and tells us so right then. The "MF" is going to have to rely on hired muscle to extend his power and take vengeance on Kick Ass. Enter a series of nasty criminal types who are drafted into his crazy army of evildoers. The most memorable of which is a female former KGB agent that he dubs "Mother Russia". The mob that made up his Dad's enforcers is mundane compared to the nut jobs he tries to replace them with. The plot has a bit of a role reversal. In the original, the Cage character "Big Daddy" is the insane vigilante that the gangsters can't comprehend. Here, Chris and his evil army are the insane ones. They are not motivated by the average gangland objectives, they exist only to cause the havoc that the now crazy son is wrapped up in. The frightening part is not in how they dress up, that's just as silly as the hero side. The scary part is the willingness of the crew to kill cops, blow up public spaces and generally do what the nut job with all the cash wants them to do.

Kick Ass himself has matured and grown a little. He settles down into a routine of normalcy that is ultimately unsatisfying to him. The call to do right brings him back to the super hero ranks that have swollen with a lot of everyday people who want to fix the world. Some of them have gifts, some have only dreams but all of them have some determination. Just as the the bad guys have one memorable group member, the group that calls itself Justice Forever has an inspirational leader, the born again mobster who calls himself Colonel Stars and Stripes. Kick Ass connects with these everyday heroes and they try to make the world a better place. Inevitably there will be a clash between the two sides, and as usual, the side without any scruples would appear to have the edge. Dave Lizewski won't be able to retreat back to High School once the lines are drawn. The motivation for the final confrontation is a lot more significant than he had in the first story. It is different and one of the things that makes the tone of the movie quite  distinct from that earlier story. Dave's narration of the first movie puts us into a different position as observers. His voice was detached and ironic at times, in the current movie, his character seems much more the Kick Ass at the end of the first film, than the mild mannered geek he was at the start of the process. He has a pretty satisfying story arc considering that it is a comic book movie.

Despite the title of the two movies, Aaron Taylor Johnson's character is not the main hero. The true hero of both movies is little Mindy Mcready, better known as "Hit Girl". Mindy never really retired from the hero business, and when Dave discovers that he wants back in himself. There is another side of Mindy though that gets explored here. When she is taken out of action not by the bad guys but by a promise she makes to follow her Daddy's orders, she learns that evil starts somewhere and sometimes that somewhere is High School. It will seem like the sequences of Mindy discovering the cruelty of high school kids is a side track to the main story, but she has to go through some adolescence angst to mature into a more complete version of herself. That fact that she does so in such humorous, touching and vicious ways makes her character more important than ever. There are a couple of moments when the tough chick we know as "Hit Girl" is also the young and maturing Mindy. Subject to some of the same temptations and mistakes that other girls make. There are no doubt a million young girls out there in the audience (along with their parents) who have a wish fulfillment sequence when the queen bee gets her comeuppance. At that moment we know that the real "Hit Girl" will be returning with a furious vengeance and all will be right again, even if it takes a while. Her character can not have the same impact as the eleven year old killer we met a few years ago had, but she still manages to hold the screen and impress in all of the fight scenes.

A couple of ways the director Jeff Wadlow differs in tone with the movie can be found in the action sequences and the use of music. Vaughn's original film was full of whimsy and visual energy that was at times silly but utterly entrancing. Wadlow stages the action scenes very well but they lack the joyful nonsens in the first movie. The joyful ballet that was "Hit Girl" massacring an entire mob family is replaced with realistic action sequences, that emphasize the drama rather than the visual pyrotechnics of film that were found in the first film. The same thing can be said about the music. The house and rap music used in this film is fine and fits the scenes but it never tickles us in the same way that "The Banana Splits Theme" or the key notes of "A Few Dollars More" that remind us that we are watching a movie. There are not many cultural references in the film to bring in all the geeks who loved those touches in the first movie. They have been replaced by a more straight forward narrative. There are still some pretty over the top bits, like a shark tank or the resolution of Chris's Mom in the story but they are fewer. One of the most effective scenes is when Chris gets a lesson from his Uncle that pushes him completely over.   It's one spot where Mintz-Plasse doesn't chew the scenery and actually shows he can act a little.

I did not like that the Katie character from the first movie was so quickly disposed of, and I think I might have enjoyed a few more scenes of "Justice Forever" being lead by Jim Carrey with his maniacal eyed look. Still the film moves very effectively and seemed to be paced very well. The main threads that were hanging from the first movie got resolved and I feel we have been set to either enjoy another sequel or to leave these characters behind. I  for one would like them to come back in a couple of more years and give us some more ass kicking, but if it doesn't happen, I am pleased with the films we got. The first was brilliant in my opinion and this follow up is perfectly enjoyable and manages the difficult task of being satisfying even though it does change the nature of the story a little. If you are a big fan, stick around for a funny little stinger at the end of the credits.

We're the Millers

This is an R rated comedy, featuring Jennifer Aniston as a stripper, and the details on the rating read: "Rated R for crude sexual content, pervasive language, drug material and brief graphic nudity." Don't get your hopes up for that shot of Jen in the buff, it does not happen and the brief graphic nudity will do the exact opposite of turning you on. The story takes a funny premise, puts it into a typical story arc for all of the characters, and then throws in as many jokes at they could come up with that involve people repeating the phrase "WTF". It's a late summer comedy and it will be fine for adult date night but if you are looking for something unconventional, or consistently funny, or you just want to see Jennifer Aniston strip, be prepared for a disappointment.

Jason Sudeikis plays a low level pot dealer shanghaied into smuggling a whole lot of ganja from Mexico to Denver for his rich drug lord former college classmate. When he gets the idea to disguise himself as a family man traveling on vacation with the kids as cover. OK, that sounds like a promising idea. The problem is that to set up the concept, the writers have attempted to make everyone in the movie (with the exception of one character) into hipster malcontents. Almost everyone expresses contempt for the idea of a normal family life. In one early scene, the reliable and funny Thomas Lennon, plays an old acquaintance of our drug dealing hero, and gives every indication that his life pretty much ended when he got married. There is a very funny quote that comes when David, the dealer, describes to the stylist how he wants his hair cut. All of this subversion of the traditional life style is in aid of setting up the suppressed instinct that it turns out all of the maladjusted characters actually crave. Later in the film is a long sequence with another couple that strengthens the impression that married life is actually a kind of hell on Earth. The problem is that since they sell this concept so thoroughly in the set up, it makes very little sense when the turn comes. The sad story of how David and Rose, the Jennifer Aniston character, supposedly met is meant to create a bridge to that reversal but it is simply not strong enough.

There are a lot of random laughs in the film so it is entertaining. The problem is that the laughs often have little to do with the story. A corrupt and misunderstood Mexican cop creates some chuckles, and that is linked to the pot story. The plot line about incestuous kissing is just a joke that only fits the tag along plot development. Finally, there is the aforementioned bit of nudity which creates a big laugh but does so without really being part of what goes on. It is a stand alone joke that gets repeated later in the movie for another attempt to drain some laughs out of the audience. It works but it seems pretty lazy and there are a lot of opportunities that just seem to get lost because we are following some set ups that have little to do with the plot.

Aniston's costume design for the segments where she is playing a woman who is a "stay at home wife" work pretty well. Several outfits she wore reminded me of some of my own friends who fit that title, or at least have in the past. The strip club where she works at the start of the movie has the least amount of nudity you are likely to encounter in a "gentleman's club". Not only does Jen do a dance that might be considered a poor cousin of the dry hump, all the other strippers simply deliver punch lines, not characters. This may begin to sound like a gripe that there was not any T and A in the movie. I did not go to see it for that, but it is set in a world where that kind of behavior might be expected and no one behaves that way. It is just a constant reminder that you are watching a product put out to make you laugh, but that nothing in the movie should be viewed as real whatsoever.

Since Colorado is now one of two states that basically make marijuana a legal product, it might have made sense to include some humor based on the setting. Instead we get Sudeikis doing schtick to muggers that rob him, drug dealers trying to kill him and his boss who is threatening his life. If smart ass dialogue were all that were required to make a movie work, then this film would be a total success. Instead it feels like a pretty mundane film, using a set of risque characters and the only way that it could be sustained was to make tampon jokes. Admittedly, they are sufficiently disgusting and out of place as you an imagine, but they feel like the adult equivalent of a fart joke, they are old and tired and keep coming up despite the lack of humor. The characters are inconsistent and the plot can't sustain itself. There are funny lines and pieces of business throughout the movie but it seems like random humor, and not the "Airplane" kind. The line I laughed the hardest at was the name that the other married couple had for their vibrator. In context it was funny and if you can live with so hit or miss humor, than the movie is funny also. Of course I was in a pretty good mood when I saw this, you may be less forgiving.